3/19/22, 5:08 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 416

*
G.R. Nos. 159486-88. November 25, 2003.

PRESIDENT JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA, petitioner, vs. THE

HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN [SPECIAL DIVISION], HON.
MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO, HON. EDILBERTO SANDOVAL,
HON. TERESITA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Administrative Law; Attorneys; Court will not countenance any

wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial
system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in
the Philippines.—The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not
denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded
can truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not
countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our people’s faith in
the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to
practice law in the Philippines.
Same; Same; A lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct
by others.—Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others.
In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the
impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty.
Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the
dispensation of justice.
Same; Same; Attorney Allan Paguia is indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law.—WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby
indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt
hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Alan F. Paguia for President J.E. Estrada.
     The Solicitor General for respondents.

_______________

* EN BANC.

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

On 23 September 2003, this Court issued its resolution in the above-

numbered case; it read:

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fa170ef8306b66bbf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/6
3/19/22, 5:08 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 416

“The case for consideration has been brought to this Court via a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by Joseph Ejercito
Estrada, acting through his counsel Attorney Alan F. Paguia, against the
Sandiganbayan, et al. The Petition prays—

“1. That Chief Justice Davide and the rest of the members of the
Honorable Court disqualify themselves from hearing and deciding
this petition;
“2. That the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan be vacated and
set aside; and
“3. That Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905 pending
before the Sandiganbayan be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

“Attorney Alan F. Paguia, speaking for petitioner, asserts that the

inhibition of the members of the Supreme Court from hearing the petition is
called for under Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibiting
justices or judges from participating in any partisan political activity which
proscription, according to him, the justices have violated by attending the
‘EDSA 2 Rally’ and by authorizing the assumption of Vice-President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo to the Presidency in violation of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner contends that the justices have thereby prejudged a case that
would assail the legality of the act taken by President Arroyo. The
subsequent decision of the Court in Estrada v. Arroyo (353 SCRA 452 and
356 SCRA 108) is, petitioner states, a patent mockery of justice and due
process.
“Attorney Paguia first made his appearance for petitioner when he filed
an Omnibus Motion on 19 May 2003, before the Sandiganbayan, asking that
‘the appointment of counsels de officio (sic) be declared functus officio’ and
that, being the now counsel de parte, he be notified of all subsequent
proceedings in Criminal Cases No. 26558, No. 26565 and No. 26905
pending therein. Finally, Attorney Paguia asked that all the foregoing
criminal cases against his client be dismissed.
“During the hearing of the Omnibus Motion on 30 May 2003, petitioner
presented to the court several portions of the book, entitled ‘Reforming the
Judiciary,’ written by Justice Artemio Panganiban, to be part of the evidence
for the defense. On 9 June 2003, petitioner filed a motion pleading, among
other things, that—

467

VOL. 416, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 467

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

‘a) x x x President Estrada be granted the opportunity to prove the

‘truth’ of the statements contained in Justice Artemio Panganiban’s
book, ‘REFORMING THE JUDICIARY,’ in relation to the
prejudgment committed by the Supreme Court justices against
President Estrada in the subject case/s of Estrada v. Arroyo, 353
SCRA 452 and 356 SCRA 108; and,
“b) A subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum be issued to Justice
Artemio Panganiban, Justice Antonio Carpio, Justice Renato
Corona, Secretary Angelo Reyes of the Department of National
Defense, Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Senator
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and. Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. for
them to testify and bring whatever supporting documents they may
have in relation to their direct and indirect participation in the
proclamation of Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on
January 20, 2001, as cited in the book of Justice Panganiban,
including the material events that led to that proclamation and the
ruling/s in the Estrada vs. Arroyo, supra.’ (Rollo, pp. 6-7.)

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fa170ef8306b66bbf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/6
3/19/22, 5:08 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 416

“The ‘truth’ referred to in paragraph a) of the relief sought in the motion of

petitioner pertains to what he claims should have been included in the
resolution of the Sandiganbayan; viz.:

‘The request of the movant is simply for the Court to include in its Joint Resolution
the TRUTH of the acts of Chief Justice Davide, et al., last January 20, 2001 in:

‘a) going to EDSA 2;

‘b) authorizing the proclamation of Vice-President Arroyo as President on the
ground of ‘'permanent disability’ even without proof of compliance with the
corresponding constitutional conditions, e.g., written declaration by either
the President or majority of his cabinet; and
‘c) actually proclaiming Vice-President Arroyo on that same ground of
permanent disability.

‘It is patently unreasonable for the Court to refuse to include these material facts
which are obviously undeniable. Besides, it is the only defense of President Estrada.’
(Petition, Rollo, pp. 13-14.)

“On 2 July 2003, the Sandiganbayan issued an order denying the

foregoing motion, as well as the motion to dismiss, filed by petitioner.
Forthwith, petitioner filed a ‘Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon’ of the
foregoing order. According to Attorney Paguia, during the hearing of his
‘Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon’ on 11 June 2003, the three justices of the
Special Division of the Sandiganbayan made manifest their bias and
partiality against his client. Thus, he averred, Presiding Justice Minita V.
Chico-Nazario supposedly employed foul and disrespectful language when

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

she blurted out, ‘Magmumukha naman kaming gago,’ (Rollo, p. 13.) and
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro characterized the motion as
insignificant even before the prosecution could file its comments or
opposition thereto, (Rollo, p. 12.) remarking in open court that to grant
Estrada’s motion would result in chaos and disorder. (Ibid.) Prompted by the
alleged ‘bias and partial attitude’ of the Sandiganbayan justices, Attorney
Paguia filed, on 14 July 2003, a motion for their disqualification. On 31 July
2003, petitioner received the two assailed resolutions, i.e., the resolution
(Promulgated on 30 July 2003.) of 28 July 2003, denying petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration of 6 July 2003; viz.:

‘WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused-movant Joseph Ejercito Estrada’s

‘Mosyong Pangrekonsiderasyon’ (Na tumutukoy sa Joint Resolution ng Hulyo 2,
2003) dated July 6, 2003 is DENIED for lack of merit.’ (Rollo, p. 37.)

“and the resolution (Promulgated on 30 July 2003) of 25 July 2003,

denying petitioner’s motion for disqualification of 14 July 2003; viz.:

‘WHEREFORE, prescinding from all the foregoing, the Court, for want of merit,
hereby DENIES the Motion for Disqualification.’ (Rollo, p. 48.)

“The instant petition assailing the foregoing orders must be DISMISSED

for gross insufficiency in substance and for utter lack of merit. The
Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion, an indispensable
requirement to warrant a recourse to the extraordinary relief of petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. On the
one hand, petitioner would disclaim the authority and jurisdiction of the
members of this tribunal and, on the other hand, he would elevate the
petition now before it to challenge the two resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan. He denounces the decision as being a patent mockery of
justice and due process. Attorney Paguia went on to state that—

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fa170ef8306b66bbf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/6
3/19/22, 5:08 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 416

‘The act of the public officer, if LAWFUL, is the act of the public office. But the act
of the public officer, if UNLAWFUL, is not the act of the public office.
Consequently, the act of the justices, if LAWFUL, is the act of the Supreme Court.
But the act of the justices, if UNLAWFUL, is not the act of the Supreme Court. It is
submitted that the Decision in ESTRADA vs. ARROYO being patently unlawful in
view of Rule 5.10 of the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, is not the act of the
Supreme Court but is merely the wrong or trespass of those individual Justices who
falsely spoke and acted in the name of the Supreme Court. (Urbano vs. Chavez, 183
SCRA [347]). Furthermore, it would seem absurd to allow the Justices to use the
name of the Supreme Court as a shield for their UNLAWFUL act.’ (Petition, Rollo,
p. 11.)

469

VOL. 416, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 469

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

“Criticism or comment made in good faith on the correctness or wrongness,

soundness or unsoundness, of a decision of the Court would be welcome for,
if well-founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and contribute to the
correction of an error if committed. (In Re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 [1949])
“The ruling in Estrada v. Arroyo, being a final judgment, has long put to
end any question pertaining to the legality of the ascension of Arroyo into
the presidency. By reviving the issue on the validity of the assumption of
Mme. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the presidency, Attorney Paguia is
vainly seeking to breathe life into the carcass of a long dead issue.
“Attorney Paguia has not limited his discussions to the merits of his
client’s case within the judicial forum; indeed, he has repeated his assault on
the Court in both broadcast and print media. Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility prohibits a member of the bar from making such
public statements on any pending case tending to arouse public opinion for
or against a party. By his acts, Attorney Paguia may have stoked the fires of
public dissension and posed a potentially dangerous threat to the
administration of justice.
“It is not the first time that Attorney Paguia has exhibited similar conduct
towards the Supreme Court. In a letter, dated 30 June 2003, addressed to
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., and Associate Justice Artemio V.
Panganiban, he has demanded, in a clearly disguised form of forum
shopping, for several advisory opinions on matters pending before the
Sandiganbayan. In a resolution, dated 08 July 2003, this Court has strongly
warned Attorney Alan Paguia, on pain of disciplinary sanction, to desist
from further making, directly or indirectly, similar submissions to this Court
or to its Members. But, unmindful of the well-meant admonition to him by
the Court, Attorney Paguia appears to persist on end.
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, and
the Court hereby orders Attorney Alan Paguia, counsel for petitioner Joseph
Ejercito Estrada, to SHOW CAUSE, within ten days from notice hereof,
why he should not be sanctioned for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an
officer of the Court.”

On 10 October 2003, Atty. Paguia submitted his compliance with the

show-cause order. In a three-page pleading, Atty. Paguia, in an
obstinate display of defiance, repeated his earlier claim of political
partisanship against the members of the Court.
Canon 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which Atty. Paguia
has tirelessly quoted to give some semblance of validity for his
groundless attack on the Court and its members, provides—

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fa170ef8306b66bbf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/6
3/19/22, 5:08 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 416

“Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political

questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not
make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse
candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political
activities.”

Section 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code defines the term

“partisan political activities;” the law states:

“The term ‘election campaign’ or ‘partisan political activity’ refers to an act

designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or
candidates to a public office which shall include:

“(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other

groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or
undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
“(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades,
or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes
and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a
candidate.
“(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding
interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public
office;
“(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed
to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
“(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or
against a candidate.”

It should be clear that the phrase “partisan political activities,” in its

statutory context, relates to acts designed to cause the success or the
defeat of a particular candidate or candidates who have filed
certificates of candidacy to a public office in an election. The taking
of an oath, of office by any incoming President of the Republic
before the Chief Justice of the Philippines is a traditional official
function of the Highest Magistrate. The assailed presence of other
justices of the Court at such an event could be no different from their
appearance in such other official functions as attending the Annual
State of the Nation Address by the President of the Philippines
before the Legislative Department.
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not
denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-
founded can truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court,
but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of

471

VOL. 416, NOVEMBER 25, 2003 471

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who
have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates
that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar
conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives
and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the
members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded seeking to
impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.
The attention of Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate
of Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting
a member of the bar from making such public statements on a case
that may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fa170ef8306b66bbf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/6
3/19/22, 5:08 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 416

Regrettably, Atty. Paguia has persisted in ignoring the Court’s well-

meant admonition.
On the 7th September 2003 issue of the Daily Tribune, Atty.
Paguia wrote to say—

“What is the legal effect of that violation of President Estrada’s right to due
process of law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo
unconstitutional and void. The rudiments of fair play were not observed.
There was no fair play since it appears that when President Estrada filed his
petition, Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices had already committed
to the other party—GMA—with a judgment already made and waiting to be
formalized after the litigants shall have undergone the charade of a formal
hearing. After the justices had authorized the proclamation of GMA as
president, can they be expected to voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality
of their own act?”

Unrelentingly, Atty. Paguia has continued to make public statements

of like nature.
The Court has already warned Atty. Paguia, on pain of
disciplinary sanction, to become mindful of his grave
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court.
Apparently, he has chosen not to at all take heed.
WHEREFORE, Attorney Alan Paguia is hereby indefinitely
suspended from the practice of law, effective upon his receipt
hereof, for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts of the
land through the Office of the Court Administrator.

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Yrastorza, Sr. vs. Latiza

SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.
     Carpio, J., No part.

Respondent Atty. Allan Paguia indefinitely suspended from

practice of law.

Note.—It is the foremost responsibility of a lawyer “to observe

and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers.” (Villaflor vs. Sarita, 308 SCRA 129 [1999])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017fa170ef8306b66bbf000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/6